|
Come on, Lane, you say “it was no mistake” Matthew wrote Asaph and Amos….and then discuss the “semantic range” of the word “begetting” (which I find no fault with per se), and end with, “It could be that Matthew simply wanted to include these names in the genealogy for their prophecies and Psalms.” [emphasis mine –SMR] Isn’t that somewhat lame? Why, for the sake of “their prophecies and Psalms,” would he falsify the genealogical record? It doesn’t make sense. It’s too far-fetched. What on earth do their prophecies and psalms have to do with literal royal forebears? “Semantic range” is too feeble a reason to explain such a discrepancy.
I interacted with Metzger’s argument because it had more substance to it, and it showed the specific reason why this vagary was foisted upon the church – it was the decision of the textual critics, based upon their presuppositions.
Sorry to depart. In this part of the world it’s way past my bedtime. Back tomorrow.
I'll continue the discussion then. I have a list of the things you mentioned earlier to discuss, such as you just mentioned in your latest.
Steve
__________________
Steve Rafalsky
Elder, International Evangelical Church (Reformed)
Limassol, Cyprus
" I am set for the defense of the gospel" (Philippians 1:17)
" Strengthened with all might, according to His glorious
power, unto all patience and longsuffering with joyfulness..." (Colossians 1:11)
Blog: A Great and Terrible Love |